buttered_cat_paradox wrote:"The Meaning Of Tingo" book is full of words I'd like English to have. (I ran a quick search and it seems like nobody mentioned it. Check it out, it's full of great words from around the world)

The word I personally miss the most when speaking English is an equivalent of the Hebrew word תתחדש. It's a super-common word you say to someone whenever they got something new (a haircut, a shirt, a gift, anything at all). It combines "I noticed you got something new", "I like your new thing" and "I hope you enjoy your new thing" in a very concise way.

buttered_cat_paradox wrote:The word I personally miss the most when speaking English is an equivalent of the Hebrew word תתחדש. It's a super-common word you say to someone whenever they got something new (a haircut, a shirt, a gift, anything at all). It combines "I noticed you got something new", "I like your new thing" and "I hope you enjoy your new thing" in a very concise way.

I want this word in German and English now. How is it pronounced?

Google says: /tit.ħäˈde̞ʃ/ when spoken to a male, /tit.ħädˈʃi/ when spoken to a female.

Not strictly speaking. There are pretty much always ways to avoid splitting infinitives without resorting to archaic or awkward constructions. It just might not always be the most obvious way. (Not that there is anything wrong with splitting infinitives, generally.)

The prescription itself archaic: "boldly to go" was the fading dominate form at the time the prescription was first commonly discussed. The original point of the rule was to preserve the form that is now archaic.

I would guess so; I've never heard the adjective pronounced with a full vowel in the third syllable. But that said, I'm not sure we can assume an ironclad relationship between spelling and pronunciation on this point. For an example in somewhat the opposite direction, I hear a lot of people pronounce "pundit" as "pundant", but I've never seen it spelled that way.

Yeah the usual pronunciation is /ˈdɒ.mɪ.nənt/ or /ˈdɑ.mɪ.nənt/, never /ˈdɑ.mɪˈnænt/. But there is still clearly a difference between that and /ˈdɒ.mɪ.nət/, missing the /n/. The difference is probably subtle enough so if you already think it's spelled the other way, you won't hear the distinction.

Etymologically speaking, you would expect the -ant ending for a present active participle and the -ate ending for a perfect passive participle. So something "dominant" would be dominating other things, while something "dominate" would be dominated by other things. Obviously this rule doesn't really work all of the time, but in this case it does.

Grop wrote:But then what is an evolution professor?

A professor of evolution . . . I'm taking a class in Human Evolution and my professor made a point about the spelling of that word because I guess it annoys her.

Lazar wrote:I would guess so; I've never heard the adjective pronounced with a full vowel in the third syllable. But that said, I'm not sure we can assume an ironclad relationship between spelling and pronunciation on this point. For an example in somewhat the opposite direction, I hear a lot of people pronounce "pundit" as "pundant", but I've never seen it spelled that way.

Eebster the Great wrote:Etymologically speaking, you would expect the -ant ending for a present active participle and the -ate ending for a perfect passive participle. So something "dominant" would be dominating other things, while something "dominate" would be dominated by other things. Obviously this rule doesn't really work all of the time, but in this case it does.

What do you mean in this case it does? "Dominate" isn't an adjective in standard English, and when it is used as one it is synonymous with "dominant".

Or do you just mean that etymology tells you it's the -ant ending because it has the active meaning? I suspect that's not a terribly helpful thing to notice, as people who know about verb forms in Latin is likely a group without much overlap with people who use "dominate" as an adjective.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

It's not a reason you would expect an English speaker to know how to spell it (as you say, they would probably know the correct spelling before the Latin etymology in almost all cases), it's just a reason you could understand the spelling after the fact. Rereading my post, I realize it's not very clear.

Is there an official list of "actual phobias"? As I understand it, if a real person somewhere presented with all the symptoms of a specific phobia for small holes, then it would be "actual." And there are a lot of people with strange phobias; it isn't common of course, but even rare disorders can affect tens of thousands of people. Given the nature of specific phobias, it seems like it would be impossible to create any kind of meaningfully comprehensive list.

That said, most people who claim to have trypophobia probably don't, since they likely don't understand the details of what a phobia is.

Eebster the Great wrote:Is there an official list of "actual phobias"? As I understand it, if a real person somewhere presented with all the symptoms of a specific phobia for small holes, then it would be "actual." And there are a lot of people with strange phobias; it isn't common of course, but even rare disorders can affect tens of thousands of people. Given the nature of specific phobias, it seems like it would be impossible to create any kind of meaningfully comprehensive list.

The American psychiatric association and the world health organization both publish such lists.

I think there's a distinction between legitimately having a specific phobic anxiety disorder, and the subject of that phobia warranting it's own diagnostic criteria.

For example Wikipedia [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phobias]lists several names[/url ] for phobias of X color. For each of these if we wanted to discuss the impact to a patient and the appropriate treatments we could just write it out once and paste in the color again and again. Conversely, fear of injections does get it's own listing because it has it's own complications.

The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

The Wikipedia list specifically states it is incomplete; however, it does list trypophobia. I'm not aware of the APA's list: is it available online anywhere? In either case, I doubt it would claim to be comprehensive.

The Wikipedia list seems to largely be a product of people on Wikipedia loving words; which is fine.Note the use of the term "condition", which is just as vague medically as it is in lay speech. Trypophobia is a condition, but not (as far as I know) one that meets the criteria for being a disorder.

As for being complete, it is in a specific sense. It doesn't cover things not confirmed by science. It also doesn't cover "trivial" variations of the same disorder.

I'm not a psychologist, but I get the sense from trying to look up literature on this that psychologists aren't very interested in the fine details of what the subject of a phobia is.

The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Yeah, wiki editors and psychologists have different reasons for naming things, so it makes sense to have different resulting lists.

I liked discovering the word "trypophobia" not because I have a condition serious enough to talk to a doctor about, but because it's nice to know I'm not alone in having a minor revulsion reaction to a certain type of visual pattern. (Also it gave me a tag to use or blacklist back when I was more active on Tumblr.)

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, wiki editors and psychologists have different reasons for naming things, so it makes sense to have different resulting lists.

I liked discovering the word "trypophobia" not because I have a condition serious enough to talk to a doctor about, but because it's nice to know I'm not alone in having a minor revulsion reaction to a certain type of visual pattern. (Also it gave me a tag to use or blacklist back when I was more active on Tumblr.)

I'm somewhat annoyed by the pictures Google displays insensitively on top for an innocuous search for that word.

The Wikipedia list seems to largely be a product of people on Wikipedia loving words; which is fine.Note the use of the term "condition", which is just as vague medically as it is in lay speech. Trypophobia is a condition, but not (as far as I know) one that meets the criteria for being a disorder.

As for being complete, it is in a specific sense. It doesn't cover things not confirmed by science. It also doesn't cover "trivial" variations of the same disorder.

I'm not a psychologist, but I get the sense from trying to look up literature on this that psychologists aren't very interested in the fine details of what the subject of a phobia is.

It would be covered under either F40.228 "Other natural environment type phobia" or F40.298 "Other specified phobia" . My point was just that you can't say whether something can be, in principle, a "real phobia." You can just say whether or not it is common.

Is "nibling" a word? Wiktionary has an entry for such https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nibling as being a word referring to a niece or nephew. However I've never heard of it until recently. It seems to be rare. If I heard someone use the word "nibling" I'd probably think they were referring to food, not to nieces and nephews.

Wikipedia wrote:The word nibling is neologism suggested by Samuel Martin in 1951 as a cover term for "nephew or niece"; it is uncommon outside of specialist literature.

TEAM SHIVAHNPretty much the best team ever

A man who is ‘ill-adjusted’ to the world is always on the verge of finding himself. One who is adjusted to the world never finds himself, but gets to be a cabinet minister.- Hermann Hesse, novelist, poet, Nobel laureate (2 Jul 1877-1962)

Speaking of "-ling", am the only one who thinks we should reclaim it as a suffix meaning "offspring of"?

For example, instead of "I swerved to avoid running over a leveret, and as a result accidentally hit one of Dan's children instead" you should be able to say "I swerved to avoid running over a hareling, and as a result accidentally hit a Danling instead." Because the listener might not know what a "leveret" even is, and the children don't really belong to Dan in the same way as Dan's car or Dan's poodle.

(We already have "spiderling", "duckling", "codling", "Atheling", and so on. So there's no reason we couldn't systematize.)

ThirdParty wrote:Speaking of "-ling", am the only one who thinks we should reclaim it as a suffix meaning "offspring of"?

For example, instead of "I swerved to avoid running over a leveret, and as a result accidentally hit one of Dan's children instead" you should be able to say "I swerved to avoid running over a hareling, and as a result accidentally hit a Danling instead." Because the listener might not know what a "leveret" even is, and the children don't really belong to Dan in the same way as Dan's car or Dan's poodle.

(We already have "spiderling", "duckling", "codling", "Atheling", and so on. So there's no reason we couldn't systematize.)

I don't think that "-ling" (or the original "-ing") was ever strictly used to denote offspring of the main noun. In Old English, it certainly had a more general sense in words like "deorling" (darling), "ierðling" ("earthling", ploughman), "feorðing" (farthing, quarter), "stærling" (starling), and "underling" (underling).

ThirdParty wrote:Speaking of "-ling", am the only one who thinks we should reclaim it as a suffix meaning "offspring of"?

For example, instead of "I swerved to avoid running over a leveret, and as a result accidentally hit one of Dan's children instead" you should be able to say "I swerved to avoid running over a hareling, and as a result accidentally hit a Danling instead." Because the listener might not know what a "leveret" even is, and the children don't really belong to Dan in the same way as Dan's car or Dan's poodle.

(We already have "spiderling", "duckling", "codling", "Atheling", and so on. So there's no reason we couldn't systematize.)

I don't think that "-ling" (or the original "-ing") was ever strictly used to denote offspring of the main noun. In Old English, it certainly had a more general sense in words like "deorling" (darling), "ierðling" ("earthling", ploughman), "feorðing" (farthing, quarter), "stærling" (starling), and "underling" (underling).

OED wrote:A suffix forming derivative masculine ns., with the sense of ‘one belonging to’ or ‘of the kind of’, hence ‘one possessed of the quality of’, and also as a patronymic = ‘one descended from, a son of’, and as a diminutive. Found in the same form, or as -ung, in the other Teutonic langs. Old English examples are æþeling atheling n., cyning king n., lytling little one, child, flýming fugitive, hóring whoremonger; also the patronymics Æþelwulfing son of Æthelwulf, Ecgbrehting, Cerdicing, Wodening, etc. (Old English Chron. anno 855), Adaming, etc. ( Lindisf. Gosp. Luke iii. 38), and the gentile names Hoccingas, Iclingas, Centingas (men of Kent), with the Scriptural Gomorringas, Moabitingas, Idumingas, etc. This suffix also formed names of coins, as pending, penning penny n., scilling shilling n., and of fractional parts, as feorþing quarter, farthing n., teoðung, -ing tenth, tithing n.1: so ON. þriðjung-r third part, thriding riding n.2 (of Yorkshire).